/m/mlb

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

How in the world was Heyward #10 last year? I just read the first 500 or so words and it seems like dart throwing. If you're going to drop and raise guys so dramatically on one year's performance then that's not really trade value because nobody in their right mind bases trade value on a sample that small.

Heyward - as a trade asset last year - had a year of control at $3.6 million which he does not have anymore.

True, my quibble though is that even with that changing, what in the world convinced anyone he was the #10 trade asset in all of MLB last year? Good player, not a top 10 asset IMO. Oh well, people on the Internet, they're always making lists.

True, my quibble though is that even with that changing, what in the world convinced anyone he was the #10 trade asset in all of MLB last year?

He was a 22 year old with 3 years of team control who just put up a season worth nearly six wins. Even if you don't believe the defensive numbers (and you should at least buy into them a little, since he's universally regarded as a plus defender), it really wasn't hard to be bullish on an incredibly toolsy outfielder with a terrific prospect pedigree, who is starting to come into his prime, and coming off a very good season. Yes, this stance does require some selective ignoring of what happened in 2011, and his injury risk, but still.

I've come to think that prospect pedigree is the most overvalued (at least by fans) commodity in baseball. People will disregard 1000 mediocre MLB ABs because a dude raked in 300 AA ABs four years ago.

I find Heyward falling off this list completely much more perplexing than his inclusion at 10 last year. Last year he was a 22 year old coming off a ~6 rWAR season, considered to have the potential for more, and under control for 3 years. That's a pretty good recipe the move up these trade value lists.

In 2013, the first half of the season was ruined trying to comeback from appendix surgery, and he lost a big chunk later in the season from having his face destroyed; but he still managed to put up 3.6 rWAR in 2/3 of a "lost" season.

In 2014, he'll be a 24 year-old toolshed with 18+ rWAR already under his belt, who projects for 5+ WAR (per Steamer), and who is perceived (rightly or wrongly) to have the potential to get even better. Any of the arguments made in the article for, say, Ian Desmond could just as easily have been made for Heyward, and probably much more strongly at that.

Because "everyone knows" defensive performance occurs only along a very narrow band of performance unlike every other aspect of mlb performance. That and players are always defensively consistent year to year.

Because "everyone knows" defensive performance occurs only along a very narrow band of performance unlike every other aspect of mlb performance. That and players are always defensively consistent year to year.

I don't know what everyone knows, but I find the idea that defense wouldn't trend on a narrower band of performance compared to offensive numbers to be completely implausible. We know, for instance, that there is no uniform level of variability in athletic endeavors (basketball is more predictable than baseball, for instance), so why on earth would we expect there to be a uniform band within the sport itself?

Hitting involves numerous variables: the pitcher is actively trying to get the batter out; the defense can position itself differently, or a batter may face better defenses from one year to the next; the umpires are going to call balls that may be strikes and strikes that may be balls. All of these are going to factor into how one performs at the plate.

There's almost none of that on the defensive side. Once the ball has left the bat, it's just the defender and the ball. The pitcher no longer matters. Nor, really, does the batter. The baserunner does a little bit, but not much. The ball is hit, and the defender attempts to make a play. So it seems inescapable that true talent level should manifest on the defensive side far more consistently than it does on the offensive side. Yes, you're going to get movement, either by injury or positioning or just plain luck. But in terms of what we should expect year to year, then I fail to see how we wouldn't expect defensive performance not to trend within a narrower band than what you'd see on the offensive side.

Whether the numbers we have right now are capable of capturing that is another matter, but we should expect defensive performance to be more consistent than offensive.

Whether the numbers we have right now are capable of capturing that is another matter, but we should expect defensive performance to be more consistent than offensive.

I think what this shows is that you don't understand how defensive performance is measured.

EDIT: Actually, that's a bit mean-spirited and unfair. What it means is that you're confusing defensive performance (which is likely consistent) with defensive value (which is not very consistent and what all advanced defensive metrics actually are measuring).

That's been enough to make Molina a six-win player in each of the past two seasons, with the understanding that he's significantly better than that when factoring in all the other knowns and unknowns. He's owed an average of $14.5 million per year over the next four seasons; if that figure were $25 million per, he'd still be a steal.

I'm not sure that there is enough circumstantial evidence for the bolded statement to even qualify as hyperbole.

Because "everyone knows" defensive performance occurs only along a very narrow band of performance unlike every other aspect of mlb performance. That and players are always defensively consistent year to year.

Sure. That's what it is. I'm a luddite because non-proprietary defensive numbers are about as useful as hitting a golf ball with a sledgehammer.

I think what this shows is that you don't understand how defensive performance is measured.

EDIT: Actually, that's a bit mean-spirited and unfair. What it means is that you're confusing defensive performance (which is likely consistent) with defensive value (which is not very consistent and what all advanced defensive metrics actually are measuring).

I believe it's also wrong (or at the very least, inconsistent with what we're terming offensive value). We shouldn't expect defensive value to fluctuate more than offensive value. It should trend on a smaller band than offensive value because there is less getting in the way of turning one's true talent level into performance on the defensive side of the ball. If we're not seeing that, then it's likely our inability to perfectly capture defensive value through available data collection and metrics, not because there's truly equal levels of variability.

#11 For the record I just finished a mini study of every player with 500+ PAs in consecutive years from 1955 to 2012(using the war_daily_bat.csv file you supplied a year ago -- I'd love to have an updated version).

Year to year correlation: (4535 players in the study)

WAR: .52
dWAR: .64
oWAR: .55

The standard deviation:

WAR: 2.2
dWAR: 1.3
oWAR: 2.0

All that to say that I think it's reasonable to say that the defensive component to WAR passes the logical consistency test.